There is a footnote to the earlier 1871 translation I copied and pasted:

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.

"Neither IF we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

From the context of the passage, as witnessed by the previous sentence which says: "Neither if you were to magnify in the imagination of your thought the light of the sun as much as you are able, either that it may be greater, or that it may be brighter, a thousand times as much, or times without number; neither is this God."

It is obvious that Augustine is not saying that angels animate celestial bodies, but is merely saying if you were to imagine in your mind that they did, this would still not make them God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nec goes with the previous enumeration of things that are not God.

[And thereforewith the following statement "neither is that God"]

Angels singly moving each star are given with an indicative, meaning real mode.

Sicut = as, also indicates this.

Angels as movers of stars rolled together into one huge such is introduced with si = if, and has past subjunctive, meaning unreal mode.

Therefore St Augustine clearly WAS saying the "we" - the Church - do think angels are moving stars.

And I studied Latin for two years at university, if you don't believe me, how about contacting a Latin department?

"It is obvious that Augustine is not saying that angels animate celestial bodies, "

Obvious to you who can't read but have a vested interest in denying the correct reading.

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.

So a recent editor tried to change the correct sicut to a si?

Says more about his outlook than about St Augustine's!

Craig Crawford

No, this has nothing to do with any "recent editor." It has to do with the 17th century Benedictine edition of St. Augustine's works being regarded as the most thorough critical edition of his entire corpus. Hence the footnote is informing the reader that in the Benedictine edition of Augustine's On the Holy Trinity, the reading is 'si' (if) rather than sicut (as)

Hence:

"Neither as [663] we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

663 Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened. ed.

becomes...

"Neither IF we think of the pure angels as spirits animating celestial bodies..."

"In the 17th century the French Benedictine congregation of St. Maur edited many works of ecclesiastical writers of the patristic period. The Maurists, as they are known, made a special effort to utilize more manuscripts to obtain a better text. The 11 volume edition of St. Augustine, published in Paris from 1679 to 1700, represented a marked improvement over the previous editions. Although modern critical editions for individual works have appeared since, the Maurist edition remains as the last critical edition of the Complete Works of Augustine. The Maurist edition was frequently reprinted."

Are you rejecting this translation, or are you claiming that this translation is rendered accurately, and that it supports your notion that angels move the heavenly bodies?

Augustine says the heavenly bodies serve God, not angels.

Here is another translation:

"Nor is he as you may think of angels, pure spirits "inspiriting" the heavenly bodies and changing and turning them as they judge best in service of God..."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think the Benedictines took the phrase "animating" as meaning that angels were so to speak souls of stars, which was condemned by Bishop Tempier following St John of Damascus, and that therefore they may have preferred "si", so as to make it less definite.

I am NOT aware of them having or not having evidence in manuscripts for it, and I accept "sicut", meaning "as".

"Augustine says the heavenly bodies serve God, not angels."

Augustine says the angels through the heavenly bodies serve God.

They serve God by what they are doing with the heavenly bodies.

Meaning, I do of course accept the translation:

"Neither as the pure angels are thought of as animating heavenly bodies, changing and making use of them in accordance with the will by which they serve God,"

whether one has a passive for them or an active for we, I can't say which is more faithful, since I am not reading the Latin text here.

On other thread :

Craig Crawford

"The heavenly bodies are moved by angels."

Explain to us how this could be. What are the mechanics of how the angels are moving the heavenly bodies? They do not possess bodies or organs to push them. It is an absurd proposition. The Orthodox Church rightfully rejects such preposterous notions.

Matt SIngleton

I have to interject. 1st we have physical bodies but we are not moving stars either! 2nd I am not sure how hans explains it but I believe that angels are operating the forces. God let Satan operate the force of a tornado for instance. 3rd If angels can not move things, only because they are spirits, how can God move things since he is a spirit? If God can not move things then are you claiming God has no ability of to make physical miracles? Because that would be extremely platonic and Gnostic.

Craig Crawford

I am not the one making the absurd proposition, so let him explain the mechanics of it, since it is his silly idea. The Scriptures do not teach and the Church has never taught that the motions of the celestial bodies are wrought through the agency of angels.

Holy Scripture and the God-bearing theologians and interpreters of Scripture are explicit in stating that the Divine Providence of God is responsible for the motion of the heavenly bodies, and nowhere do they speak of the necessity of intervention by angels.

St. Dionysius the Areopagite - On the Divine Names:

"But what slipped from our view in the midst of our discourse, the Good is Cause of the celestial movements in their commencements and terminations, of their not increasing, not diminishing, and completely changeless, course, and of the noiseless movements, if one may so speak, of the vast celestial transit, and of the astral orders, and the beauties and lights, and stabilities, and the progressive swift motion of certain stars, and of the periodical return of the two luminaries, which the Oracles call "great," from the same to the same quarter, after which our days and nights being marked, and months and years being measured, mark and number and arrange and comprehend the circular movements of time and things temporal."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

St Denis - the good is indeed the cause of celestial movements.

Daily, because God is Himself providing the daily motion westward, about a little faster than full circle in 24 h.

Here the Good is efficient cause.

Periodical, because the goodness of God is providing the motive behind the motion of the angels who provide other movements; other components of the concrete movement or each body, like monthly for moon and yearly for sun.

Here the Good is the final cause. Which is closer to the kind of causality "the good" usually has.

St Denis - no direct confirmation of St Thomas (in this passage), but no direct infirmation either, full compatibility.

St Thomas agreed with Romanides on one thing : St Denis was really the Areopagite, his On the Divine Names should be read, and since he did not read Greek, he read it in Latin, in the translation presumably of Friar Moerbeke, who also translated Aristotle from Greek.

Next question:

God has no body, in His divinity, even if He assumed humanity, body and soul later.

Nevertheless God can move - and that everything, bodies or minds, in an unlimited way.

This power He shares in a limited way with angels and human souls.

At some point certainly your soul is oving sth directly in your body whenever you lift a finger.

There is no physical, only a mental reason, why you type an A here or a B there. Brain physics is not and cannot be the final determination of what you move your limbs to do, even if it is very probably an intermediate one.

So, with souls in human bodies, the limit is "only own body and only insofar as it is empowered by calories and only insofar as synapses are intact between brain centre and what is to be moved".

With angels, the limit is a body, any body, but only non-biological processes per se. Angelic beings cannot tamper directly with your DNA, but they can move objects around. If Christ had jumped from the temple roof, angels would have been lifting His body so he did not hurt Himself when coming down. When emissaries of Habsburg in Prague were defenestrated, it was not them tempting God and so angels were sent to protect them from dying.

But as said, the limit with angels is any body, and that would include a much bigger one than a man, like for instance the Sun or the Moon.

Also, angels don't have to eat and don't rely on synapses in order to do what they do.

Therefore, given existence and general way of working under God for angels (or under devil for fallen such), there is nothing absurd in an angel moving directly by its will a star.

If you think so, you are suffering from a hangover from naturalism - the theory according to which all movements, including those of your bodies, are strictly only products of bodily factors.

That is not the case.

God directly moving heavens around Earth each day is the proof of St Thomas' Prima Via and also the probable proof of St Paul in Romans 1:20. It is certainly the proof of St John of Damascus.

It does not require God to take care directly Himself of all movements involved in the movement of each celestial body, since God is providing the main one, and the ones provided by angels are subsidiary, they are each day taking a ride with God's daily movement of heavens around earth.

"The Orthodox Church rightfully rejects such preposterous notions."

Since when?

Since Sergian bishops became trained in DiaMat, dialectical materialism. That is since when.

Romanides may have given them a boost or an excuse too.

But I saw a video where the idiocy of saying earlier iconography with "ancient aliens" is refuted by the fact that what "ancient alien astronaut" believers took for space ships hovering over Crucifixion really were Sun and Moon depicted as having faces, because they are "run" by angels.

The Church of Constantinople back then, whether really Orthodox, that is Catholic, or Schismatic, was NOR rejecting "such preposterous notions." Or it would not have allowed iconographers to write their icons like that.

Craig Crawford

Hans-Georg Lundahl Let's try to make this brief, shall we? One quote will suffice.

St. Augustine - The City of God:

"If the angels transport whatever terrestrial creatures they please from any place they please, and convey them whither they please, is it to be believed that they cannot do so without toil and the feeling of burden?"

Now, even though Augustine specifically mentioned "terrestrial" (earthly) bodies, and made no mention of angels moving the celestial (heavenly) bodies, we can acknowledge that angels are at least able to convey certain objects at will, without toil or burden.

Now, please tell us (briefly!) how did the celestial objects (sun, moon, etc.) get placed in the firmament in their ordered courses in the first place? Did God place them there, and at some point the task was handed over or transferred to the angels? or do you maintain that the angels were given the task of originally placing the planets in their appointed places and courses?

St. Augustine - Contra Faustum Manichaeum:

"The apostle praises the creature of God, but forbids the worship of it; and in the same way Moses gives due praise to the sun and moon, while at the same time he states the fact of their having been made by God, and placed by Him in their courses,--the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night."

No mention of any angels here. St. Augustine says God placed the sun and moon in their courses.

St. Athanasius the Great - First Book Against the Heathen:

"For who that sees the circle of heaven and the course of the sun and the moon, and the positions and movements of the other stars, as they take place in opposite and different directions, while yet in their difference all with one accord observe a consistent order, can resist the conclusion that these are not ordered by themselves, but have a maker distinct from themselves who orders them? or who that sees the sun rising by day and the moon shining by night, and waning and waxing without variation exactly according to the same number of days, and some of the stars running their courses and with orbits various and manifold, while others move without wandering, can fail to perceive that they certainly have a creator to guide them?"

St. Athanasius says the Creator both orders *and* guides them. Once again, no mention of angels anywhere!

Hans-Georg Lundahl Please clarify. When you say Romanides, are you referring to Professor John Romanides (1927 - 2001)?

Sergian bishops? Are you referring to those in communion with Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow (1867 - 1944)?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"we can acknowledge that angels are at least able to convey certain objects at will, without toil or burden."

Thank you.

Also, if celestial and terrestrial objects are made of same kind of stuff, this means the angels would have similar capabilities over either of them.

"Now, please tell us (briefly!) how did the celestial objects (sun, moon, etc.) get placed in the firmament in their ordered courses in the first place? Did God place them there, and at some point the task was handed over or transferred to the angels? or do you maintain that the angels were given the task of originally placing the planets in their appointed places and courses?"

God created each object on day 4 and for each of them He gave an orbit to fulfil, and in each case He assigned to an angel the task of carrying out this orbit.

"No mention of any angels here. St. Augustine says God placed the sun and moon in their courses."

Absence of evidence, in one particular place, is not evidence of absence.

I never contradicted the fact that the original placing of celestial objects in their first position, as well as the determining of the orbit was an act by God. Only THEN does carrying out this object become the task of an obedient angel.

He had created them as living beings, with souls intermediate between angelic nature and human souls;

He had created them as physical objects but with angels to carry out His guidance;

He were personally the cause of their present motions without any intermediate, as He may have been at Ascension;

and therefore this word does not in itself decide between these possibilities.

What we do know is that spirits embodied by celestial objects or guiding them are NOT autonomous, if lower than God.

We cannot say Sun obeys the will of Helios son of Hyperion and Jupiter the will of Jove, son of Saturn, and Saturn the will of Saturn, the father of Jove and brother of Hyperion and uncle of Helios. That we cannot say, because these fickle deities revealed to Hesiod by the joke of some fairy or the deception of some demon are too fickle to account for the harmony between these bodies. We must instead insist they all obey one single Will, with a totally perfact Wisdom : that of God.

"When you say Romanides, are you referring to Professor John Romanides (1927 - 2001)?"

I did not know his lifespan, but that is the man I meant.

"Sergian bishops? Are you referring to those in communion with Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow (1867 - 1944)?"

If he is, as I suppose, the one who ruled IN Moscow UNDER Communism, at a very basic level, yes.

Distinction : I do not mean only those who approved of him and were in Communion with him, I mean also those who agree with errors he took up under Communism:

believing Evolution;

believing bodies can only be moved by bodies;

believing Contraception is correct (this last thing being from 70's, one would rather consider it post-Sergian than strictly Sergian, since he died in 1944, as you told me).

This includes not just Modernist Orthodox, but also some Conservative sharing those errors or for that matter the Vatican II Sect, the Latin version of Sergianism.

I will give a few quotes to you, now.

As said, absence of evidence, in one place, is not evidence of absence.

This means I see presence of evidence in other places.

Job 38:[7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

So, "morning stars" are sons of God?

That means they are angels.

Job 38:[12] Didst thou since thy birth command the morning, and shew the dawning of the day its place?

So, the dawning of the day has some conscience and can be shown things BY God? Either it is an inherent soul of dawning, or an angel guiding for instance morning star (Venus and Mercury) and sun.

Judges 5:[20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

If stars can fight, either they have souls or they are guided by angels who use them as - in this case - tools for fighting.

Baruch 3:[33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

So, either stars have souls, or the angels guiding them are doing the rejoicing and the saying "here we are" when God calls them.

Note previous verse, and confer that angels, even fallen ones, can transform themselves to "angels of light".

Will not withhold that Kent Hovind thinks "trembling" (mentioned about light in Job too, he doesn't read Baruch) refers to wave theory about nature of light.

However, the most immediately apparent meaning is that either both light and stars are alive, or that both are guided by angels.

18:[6] He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way: [7] His going out is from the end of heaven, And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.

In other words, King David agreed with St Francis of Assisi to call the Sun "our brother, Mister Sun".

And it is very instructive to read the praise of the Three Youths.

Daniel 3:[57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever. [61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [66] O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [67] O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [68] O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [69] O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [70] O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [71] O ye nights and days, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [72] O ye light and darkness, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [73] O ye lightnings and clouds, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Up to here, the works are described as animate, as able to obey the injunction of the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the three youths.

Next verse:

[74] O let the earth bless the Lord: let it praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Here it is in third person. Earth itself is not animate and does not have one angel to guide its reactions.

It is rather its parts which separately can do so.

[75] O ye mountains and hills, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [76] O all ye things that spring up in the earth, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [77] O ye fountains, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [78] O ye seas and rivers, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Can the beasts consciously praise God? No, but angels guiding them in troops can make them do so:

[79] O ye whales, and all that move in the waters, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [80] O all ye fowls of the air, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [81] O all ye beasts and cattle, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Men, however, can praise God consciously, themselves:

[82] O ye sons of men, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all for ever. [83] O let Israel bless the Lord: let them praise and exalt him above all for ever. [84] O ye priests of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [85] O ye servants of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [86] O ye spirits and souls of the just, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

Note that both Purgatory is and Bosom of Abraham was in the Netherworld, hence no difference is made between the souls who were already calmly waiting for the Soul of Christ to come down to them and those who were still doing some penance in Purgatory.